Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the specific consequence an agent must know: disconnecting zernio removes every social account at once rather than one channel, and scheduled posts stop publishing until manual reconnection in the Mark app. That is exactly the kind of blast-radius detail annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then the destructive scope, then the pre-flight call, then the limitation, then related tools. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive scope, the recovery path, and sibling navigation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single connectionId parameter is already documented as coming from list_connections, so the baseline is 3. The description gestures at provider discovery via list_channels but doesn't add format or validation detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Disconnects') and resource ('an integration'), and immediately scopes the blast radius for the zernio provider. An agent can distinguish this from list_connections, sync_connections, and update_connection_settings without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the pre-flight step ('call list_channels first'), states a hard limitation ('Connecting accounts cannot be done from the agent'), and lists related tools for navigation. Both when-to-use and what-this-cannot-do are covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.